This gets pretty rambly.

The tension between the writings on women in American Methodism and Jarena Lee's experience is particularly relevant today, in that both women and especially women of color are continually marginalized. In Methodism they fall from active and equal participant to "preacher's wife" (which especially felt pointed) to relief and war efforts as the role of "mother" to "their boys." Yet black women were again segregated into their own groups, often unnamed and unappreciated for their work. What's more is that the idea of "mothering" became synonymous with jobs that did go unappreciated and unnamed. By 1901 we see the list of female ministers rise to 97, which is... great. But Jarena Lee's account, wherein she outlines the many ways and times she sought to kill herself, struck me as not an unfamiliar battle (like in The Awakening) that women in particular suffer ("that I knew not what ailed me") an unknowable depression pertaining to their ultimate role or mission in life. Jarena, obviously, had much more to deal with in that regard than the average white woman. Perhaps, like with other great leaders, it may have been her propensity for creative and passionate moods that made her a dynamic and convincing leader. At any rate, I'm not sure that I'm saying anything specifically helpful here, but that there seems to me a line running through these accounts of women and how spectacularly un-helped they are throughout their journeys. That determination to go and do is in some ways summed up at the end of Jarena's account, where she mentions that her manuscript may have errors because she was self-taught (read: because of both race and gender) but that she knows she's a CHAMP because she's the first black Methodist preacher. Thank god for her self-awareness, otherwise the readings would have just been depressing.

New Methodism in America

In “Americanization of Methodism", I noticed that American Methodism was becoming increasingly institutionalized and structured. For instance, forming an educational system, publishing and distributing hymnbooks, memoirs, or catechisms, holding conferences regularly, and creating the episcopacy. In other words, unlike John Wesley’s intention, American Methodists seem to form Methodism as a new structured denomination. 

I wonder why American methodists formed more institutionalized and structured Methodism in America, which put some distance between Wesley and American methodists, even though Wesley opposed American independence. Were the changes inevitable results?

Jarena Lee and the malice of Satan

Throughout her writing, Jarena Lee frequently references the "malice of Satan" as the source of her spiritual struggles. She extensively describes this in her account of her journey of toward conversion and sanctification; however, she also mentions it when she received her call to preach (she first thought it might be Satan's voice calling her) and throughout her preaching ministry (at one point, she claims that the kingdom of Satan fell as she was preaching a sermon and in another instance, that Satan tempted her to give up her journey since she was probably not going to be permitted to preach anyway). For Lee, Satan was a real presence in her life seeking to tempt and destroy. How does Lee's perception of this correlate to other Methodist ministers during this time? Were other Methodist preachers as avidly concerned about spiritual warfare? Furthermore, to what extent does Lee's descriptive accounts of her experience of and sermons on resisting Satan influence her relative popularity as an itinerant preacher? This obviously resonated with her audiences for her to be permitted to preach in places that women had not previously preached before.

Jarena Lee's Preaching

In Jarena Lee's writing she devotes several pages to essentially arguing for her right, as a woman, to preach. This alone is telling in that she felt the need to do this, but I'm curious as to how this was received both in the AME church and elsewhere, as she seems to make a convincing argument to those who would have disagreed with right to preach. She appeals to theology/doctrine by saying that Christ died for both man and woman, and makes the argument that God is "straitened" or restricted if we claim that he only uses men to preach the gospel, and that nothing is impossible for God. She appeals to Scripture, citing examples where Mary preached of Christ's resurrection, and also warns that church by-laws could bring disrepute into the word of life after describing how Richard Allen initially refuses her right to preach based on lack of precedent. Finally, she cites examples of her effectiveness as a preacher and the people who had been converted as a result. I'm interested if she was seen as an outlier, or if her witness encouraged other women to preach in the AME Church and different denominations.

Doctrine of perfection in the US?

On reading through Jarena Lee's journals, I became curious to know how Wesley's idea of Christian perfection fared in the colonies and early post Revolution US. Jarena Lee's first introduction to sanctification through William Scott made no mention of perfection, and even the idea of sanctification was new to her. Did early American Methodists believe in and/or preach on perfection? Was it acknowledged and just not at the forefront of their thought, or did people disagree with Wesley on this issue? Jarena's story is full of very distinct moments and structured around those moments as the source of transformation--would perfection be difficult to hold onto as a more gradual occurrence when conversions/transformations were understood as moments in time?

Pietism & Political Abstention

The Methodists have (some of) their roots in various pietistic movements. If I'm keeping my denominational history straight I believe Pietistic movements generally had elements of political abstention. They were more concerned with the private (and perhaps familial) search for holiness and closeness with God. The movements tended to be isolationist in that they were not focused on reforming the world; rather, they focused on reforming the individual. As such, Pietists rarely sought political office or participated much in social reform outside of their community. If this is correct, does this tendency help to explain the shift Methodist made in the 19th century to "not being involved in politics" and separating themselves from divisive social concerns? Our readings seem to have pointed to this shift as largely a pragmatic one (you can't preach the gospel where you can't go), however, I'm wondering if this was an underlying disposition in Methodism based on its pietistic roots.

I felt my heart strangely vexed...

In Chapter 2 of American Methodism, it is noted that “Coke performed. Asbury governed” (32). There is harshness here, as in other places throughout chapters 2 and 3 that spoke to the realities of what was happening between white men in terms of power struggles and Methodist identity formation. Rhetoric surrounding inclusion of black members and white women, however, speaks through the tone of giving our historical figures the benefit of the doubt. For instance, “Methodists had difficulty in credentialing black leadership” (31), “If gender vexed early Methodism, so did race and language” (37), and the preacher’s wife who exercised ministry “in teaching, in visiting, in comforting the ill and bereaved, in witnessing, in heading missionary societies, in modeling family piety, in interpreting her husband (to women and other preacher, in supporting the ministry, in negotiating the frequent moves, in short, in functioning as a sub-minister” (54). Methodists did not have “difficulty” credentialing black leadership- they didn’t want to- and if they did, they were complicit in not getting what they wanted. I’m sorry, gender and race “vexed” white, male Methodists? What a burden. And if I’m reading that extensive list correctly, I’m seeing that the preacher’s wife was no “sub-minister” but a minister. This is something we seem to do quite frequently in historical writing, where it is totally acceptable to give realistic accounts of the bitterness that raged between white male leadership, but then to dilute the matter as soon as race and gender vex the conversation. In what ways does this type of historical writing linger on in our own conversations, sermons, and complicity within the institution? Are Methodists still having the same trouble in allowing “benefit of the doubt” and respectability politics; are we allowing it to carry us?

The Women Had It Right

In Chapter 3 of American Methodism, Richey discusses the role of women regarding societies and mission.  The women's societies seem to have been the essence of what mission is supposed to be.  They "showed what direct, hands-on missionary initiatives could accomplish in slum areas and among society's marginalized persons."  The Five Points Mission in New York City began with limited success, but female leadership ultimately made it the "much-visited model for urban mission" by the 1860s. I commend the Methodist women of the time for their concern for the marginalized.  Outside of the challenges of serving the people of the slums, did the Women's societies receive any push-back or face challenges in their efforts to serve the poor?

Richard Allen's legacy

Reading about Richard Allen answered many of my questions about the AME church and its beginnings, which seems particularly important to understand at this moment in history. The fact that he converted his master but still had to purchase his freedom is mirrored by the change in Methodism that occurred to push him away from that religious establishment. Moreover, the things that drew Allen to Methodism - "the fervor with which the gospel was advanced, openness to the poor and to the blacks that once had been the norm in Methodist societies, and the staunch abolitionism that had been a trademark of Wesleyan preachers" - began to dissolve, and this seems (taken in today's context) a parallel to some of our own problems. He does seem to be more Wesleyan than any of Wesley's followers - a proper radical again the ills of society, ready to make the jump when circumstances called. Are we nowadays taking the course of Allen, or the establishment? I love the idea that Dickerson proposes: "to rally around Richard Allen and his vision of Methodism." I am further interested now in how Allen's course ran, and how the AME church today compares with the UMC church. What would the parallels be in their current manifestations? How similar are we now to the ideas of the original Wesleyan followers - and does it technically matter if we stay true to those ideals, as transformation is a natural part of religion?

Asbury the Tyrant?

I remember a conversation with my father before I began this class: "remember: Asbury was a tyrant" he said. Certainly, Asbury seems concerned with power and structure, but I find little to back up this sentiment beyond that. The emphasis on structure does not necessarily mean he was exerting his influence for his own ends, and the way the Methodist church was being structured seems similar to how the UMC is today. So I was wondering: where does this image of Asbury as tyrant originate, does it have legs, and what benefits and deficits would this have on the fledgling Methodist church?

Reverend Doctors

Running through Candy Gunther Brown's article on healing is the idea that Wesley wanted his pastors to walk a fine line of being shepherds of the soul and physicians of the body.  After his death, the idea that pastors could ever dabble in the realm of doctors fell along with the idea that prayer and medicine could go hand-in-hand.  In light of recent events surrounding the idea of health, what position do we as faith leaders (not necessarily pastors but those who are aware of our theological history) step into the discussion and practice of bodily wellness?  Should we take such a step?  How can the faith community support the medical community--if it should?

Demographics of Preachers

Because Richard Allen is quoted as saying there was "no colored preacher in Philadelphia but myself," (Dickerson) I am curious about the changing landscape of preachers around this time. Did Allen really mean he was the only black preacher, or that he was the only black Methodist preacher? How common were black preachers by the time Jarena Lee was permitted to preach? Did more black women (and white women for that matter) join the fold of preachers immediately after Jarena Lee, or was she a unique case?

American Methodism in 1780s

Slavery was an critical issue for John Wesley, and he criticized slavery in many ways–sermons, letters, and writings, 'Thoughts upon slavery'. His concern on slavery originated from his visiting to America, Georgia and South Carolina. He witnessed immorality and inappropriateness of slavery. This idea was conveyed to Asbury. "American Methodism" quotes Asbury's saying regarding slavery: "I am strongly persuaded that if the Methodists will not yield on this point and emancipate their slaves, God will depart from them." Thus, it is obvious that both Wesley and American Methodists strongly opposed to slavery.

However, Allen, who experienced conversion through a sermon from a Methodist circuit rider when he was a slave, disappointed with American Methodism in 1780s, and he "founded African Methodism to recapture authentic Wesleyanism in America." In the article, "Richard Allen: A Quintessential Wesleyan," Dickerson mentions that "during the 1780s, Methodism changed…the fervor with which the gospel was advanced, openness to the poor and to blacks that once had been the norm in Methodist societies, and the staunch abolitionism that had been a trademark of Wesleyan preachers all started to wane." I think the 1784 Christmas Conference brought huge alteration into American Methodism.

I was wondering why Methodism in America suddenly changed, why American Methodists at that time diminished their zeal against slavery, and what happened at the Christmas Conference.

Prayer & Healing within Methodism: Who Ruined It?

An emphasis on prayer’s relationship in the midst of healing is near and dear to my Pentecostal-charismatic-non-denominational heart. I can specifically recall a bible study on the book of Acts within my home Methodist Church, and the subject of divine healing seemed to spook everybody (Teachers pursuing MDivs included). Candy Gunther Brown makes it very clear prayer and divine healing have been in the Methodist stream of consciousness. Even if John Wesley sought a pragmatic both-and, it seems we have strayed from that approach. Richey’s American Methodism paints the continuing struggle to recover Wesley as the theological tutor, but what has happened on the prayer and healing front? Is it our desire to want a singular answer rather than prayer & medicine working together? Or is it a taste aversion caused by the Oral Roberts of the world?

Methodism Reflects Culture

As Richey outlines the development of Methodist tradition in America, it appears the culture of America influenced the creation of the MEC (and its offshoots).  Debates over consolidated power and the hierarchy/governance of the Church seemed reflective of the secular debates within the Continental Congress.  Additionally, the compromises made at a governmental level mirrored those made within the developing church regarding slavery, in particular.  The conversations at various conferences about schism also seem to be influenced by the deeply divided elements of early American government.  Conversations about representation within conferences also has that same feel as the debate within the Continental Congress about bicameral legislative bodies. 

As Richey noted, the structure of the MEC was tested as it grew, much like America.  As the church determined how to handle the growing pains of expansion, the ways in which that happened not only reflected a Wesleyan theology, but also that of the emerging political environment. 

But at a more subtle level, there seem to be some other similarities and parallels. For example, Asbury’s work ethic.  I wonder how much that was affected by the American spirit v. Wesley.  Clearly, we’ll never really know since his writings were destroyed, although I’m reasonably sure the argument could be made for both.  Additionally, when they struck Wesley’s name from the Discipline in the 1790s, what impact did that have? It’s not clear how Wesley reacted to that, although given his ego, I imagine he didn’t love it.  But I raise the question because it feels like the (small-ish) separation from Wesley paralleled the separation from England a little.  

All of this begs the question: what would Methodism look like had America not declared independence, if there was no revolution?  What other influences would have marked our development if we stayed within the Anglican tradition?  What would our theology look like?  Would we still have the prophetic edge, a clear mark of early Methodism? 

Wesley's Authority

In Chapter 1 of American Methodism, Wesley is characterized quite frequently as demanding loyalty, discipline, and order. The way in which he organizes the Methodist society seems to be quite authoritative, with himself as the leader who has the final say about nearly everything. Rankin "demands acceptance of Wesley's authority," and Wesley instructs preachers to preach no doctrine other than what is found in his New Testament notes and his sermon volumes. I can see the beginnings of some of this desire for total authority in earlier writings of Wesley's, but I'm curious as to how and why this practice was developed to the state described in this chapter.

Bethel and the Supreme Court

Richard Allen mentions that Robert Birch, one of the elders appointed to Philadelphia, appealed to the Supreme Court when the pulpit at Bethel was denied him by the Bethel congregation. Assuming that he is referring to the U.S. Supreme Court, I find it intriguing that this matter would be brought before a governmental legal agency of this level. Was it common at this time for religious matters such as this to be brought before the Supreme Court? I know there were more issues surrounding this particular conflict (race being the primary issue), but at what point does the church yield it's authority to legislate such matters to the government?

Preaching in the Early Republic

In his memoir, Richard Allen talks a great deal about people preaching in other people's houses. Allen preaches like that a number of times as does several of the ministers he travels with. Based on his description it seemed like these house preaching sessions were different from preaching at a society meeting. It seems more like the preaching is done just for the family and maybe a neighbor or two who decides to come over.
I've always assumed preaching required a large audience and a more formal setting. Expounding on Scripture doesn't necessarily equate with preaching in the way I've understood preaching. How did Allen and his contemporaries understand preaching? Was it simply any exegesis of Scripture? Or were there additional criteria to separate it from exhortation and discussion of Scripture?